The Qur'an has plagiarised a lot of Syriac and Hebrew sources (even secondary ones written by Rabbis who were clear that they were just speculating) and used some of their foreign words (even when the Arabic equivalent was available and when it confused companions who tried to write dicitonaties (e.g Ibn Massoud, the prophet's companion not knowing what "hanaan" (assyrian aramaic) meant when the Arabic equivalent "3atefa" or compassion was available). And so it's reasonable to think that Mohammad (who's actual name is Qithm Bn Abdallat and not Mohammad Bn Abduallah) saw Jesus' name in Syriac writing and went for the Arabic word that seemed typographically similar. This could a typographical coincidence. But it makes you think so I felt I needed to share it.

The Qur'an has plagiarised a lot of Syriac and Hebrew sources (even secondary ones written by Rabbis who were clear that they were just speculating) and used some of their foreign words (even when the Arabic equivalent was available and when it confused companions who tried to write dicitonaties (e.g Ibn Massoud, the prophet's companion not knowing what "hanaan" (assyrian aramaic) meant when the Arabic equivalent "3atefa" or compassion was available). And so it's reasonable to think that Mohammad (who's actual name is Qithm Bn Abdallat and not Mohammad Bn Abduallah) saw Jesus' name in Syriac writing and went for the Arabic word that seemed typographically similar. This could a typographical coincidence. But it makes you think so I felt I needed to share it.

The Qur'an has plagiarised a lot of Syriac and Hebrew sources (even secondary ones written by Rabbis who were clear that they were just speculating) and used some of their foreign words (even when the Arabic equivalent was available and when it confused companions who tried to write dicitonaties (e.g Ibn Massoud, the prophet's companion not knowing what "hanaan" (assyrian aramaic) meant when the Arabic equivalent "3atefa" or compassion was available). And so it's reasonable to think that Mohammad (who's actual name is Qithm Bn Abdallat and not Mohammad Bn Abduallah) saw Jesus' name in Syriac writing and went for the Arabic word that seemed typographically similar. This could a typographical coincidence. But it makes you think so I felt I needed to share it.

Response: Now all you need is some actual evidence to back it up. Since you've presented none, your point is invalid and without merit.

The Qur'an has plagiarised a lot of Syriac and Hebrew sources (even secondary ones written by Rabbis who were clear that they were just speculating) and used some of their foreign words (even when the Arabic equivalent was available and when it confused companions who tried to write dicitonaties (e.g Ibn Massoud, the prophet's companion not knowing what "hanaan" (assyrian aramaic) meant when the Arabic equivalent "3atefa" or compassion was available). And so it's reasonable to think that Mohammad (who's actual name is Qithm Bn Abdallat and not Mohammad Bn Abduallah) saw Jesus' name in Syriac writing and went for the Arabic word that seemed typographically similar. This could a typographical coincidence. But it makes you think so I felt I needed to share it.

Response: Now all you need is some actual evidence to back it up. Since you've presented none, your point is invalid and without merit.

Evidence for what? This is like your one and only knee-jerk response in these threads. I'm posting something speculative that makes me wonder. I'm not pushing forth an argument to have burden of proof. Consider it a hypothesis with no evidence. Am I allowed to have one and share it with others? Yes. Now do us all a favor and go away.

Evidence for what? This is like your one and only knee-jerk response in these threads. I'm posting something speculative that makes me wonder. I'm not pushing forth an argument to have burden of proof. Consider it a hypothesis with no evidence. Am I allowed to have one and share it with others? Yes. Now do us all a favor and go away.

Response: This is a debate forum, which means an expected argument is supposed to back your claim. So no, you don't have to out forth an argument. Just like I don't have to point out the fact that your claim is idiotic, but I do anyway.